Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6100212" data-attributes="member: 85870">This becomes more and more evident to me the more I &quot;tweak&quot; with the system. There's so many times I say, &quot;Yeah, I could do this!&quot; but then realize after going through the rules some more, that the designers already thought of it, and either decided to forego the option for simplicity, or have something in place already that isn't quite the same, but works with other rules to accomplish the same purpose with less &quot;fiddling.&quot;I've been toying with a &quot;variant&quot; of Savage that's a little bit closer to Cortex+ (still roll a dX and a d6 on every throw, only instead of taking the best result independently, you add the two together; only the d6 &quot;Wild Die&quot; can explode). The baseline math for this is actually pretty solid and elegant--the problem is, Savage World's developers have already done the hard work of creating the combat and damage modeling in a uniquely satisfying way. So why would I try and make this change? It's the whole &quot;heartbreaker&quot; concept all over again---I really like Savage Worlds, but I want to make it &quot;better&quot; to suit my taste . . . but unless I'm willing to do the hard work of making the entire mechanical foundation solid from top-to-bottom, why wouldn't I just play Savage instead?Anyway---what is it about Savage that makes it so fluidly &quot;translatable&quot; from the page, to the reader's head, to the game table? Because for me, I think 5e will be dramatically more successful if it has this as a feature.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6100212, member: 85870"] This becomes more and more evident to me the more I "tweak" with the system. There's so many times I say, "Yeah, I could do this!" but then realize after going through the rules some more, that the designers already thought of it, and either decided to forego the option for simplicity, or have something in place already that isn't quite the same, but works with other rules to accomplish the same purpose with less "fiddling." I've been toying with a "variant" of Savage that's a little bit closer to Cortex+ (still roll a dX and a d6 on every throw, only instead of taking the best result independently, you add the two together; only the d6 "Wild Die" can explode). The baseline math for this is actually pretty solid and elegant--the problem is, Savage World's developers have already done the hard work of creating the combat and damage modeling in a uniquely satisfying way. So why would I try and make this change? It's the whole "heartbreaker" concept all over again---I really like Savage Worlds, but I want to make it "better" to suit my taste . . . but unless I'm willing to do the hard work of making the entire mechanical foundation solid from top-to-bottom, why wouldn't I just play Savage instead? Anyway---what is it about Savage that makes it so fluidly "translatable" from the page, to the reader's head, to the game table? Because for me, I think 5e will be dramatically more successful if it has this as a feature. [/QUOTE]

Verification